His conviction was based on statements he made to Senate investigators, GSA ethics officials and the agency's inspector general. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the charges related to ethics officials and the inspector general and ordered a new trial on the other charges.

The court unanimously agreed that when Safavian asked whether he could ethically travel to Scotland for a golf trip with Abramoff, he was not required to tell ethics officials that he'd been providing Abramoff information about government-owned properties.

[More...]

The government contended that once Safavian asked for the ethics opinion and once he began speaking with the inspector general, he was required to disclose all the information, even beyond what was asked. The court disagreed. "The government essentially asks us to hold that once an individual starts talking, he cannot stop," the appeals court wrote. "No case stands for that proposition."

it's a bit strange to claim to relyy on ethics advice that was given without a full disclosure of the facts. With that being said, I don't know that it arises to a crime. It surely invalidates the ethics advice.

With that being said, the other statements which were made to investigators are going to be retried.